Friday, December 10, 2010

Criminals, Judges, Prosecutors and alleged victims, acting under color of law in a conspiracy of deliberate depraved indifference to the DEPRIVATION of RIGHTS are unencumbered by any civil or criminal liability for their criminally negligent, corrupt, and malicious actions.

A conspiracy to deny rights is a crime, actionable under constitutional[5] law, criminal[6] law and civil[7] law. The ongoing unencumbered Conspiracy to DENY RIGHTS is a violation of the constitution and a crime as defined by statute “two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same),”[8] and “They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.” More specifically as individuals, “any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States”[9] and “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”[10]

Any and all of these persons acting “under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[11] are bond by an oath of office that generally asserts, here specifically to all Federal Employees[12]:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Why then do they need or even ask for immunity from “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[13]Immunity by definition is diametrically opposed to their oath of office, the Constitution, the rule of law and Justice.

It started with the federalist judges appointed by our Second President John Adams and has continued on to this day. The Federalist underlying belief was to assert an all-powerful Federal government. They saw the Federal Government in the personage of the Supreme Court Judges as the MAKERS of the law via interpretation, not the guardians of the law.

This freedom to interpret has, over time established an oligarchy, the Supreme Court, as the unquestionable power in the United States of America. This usurpation of power is in direct conflict with “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”[15]

We are being and have been DUPED.

This is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Justice Department, via Supreme Court Precedent, has empowered the criminal, negligent, corrupt and malicious judges during the Jim Crow era with Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 335 (1871). Bradley gave the crimes, negligence, corruption and malice new life during the racially discriminatory Civil Rights movement as the foundation for Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 1967. It has now created and empowered the sexually discriminatory “Jane Crow[16]” era. In addition to Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 1967 the Supreme Court has been derelict in their duty with "The domestic relations exception... divests the federal courts of jurisdiction over any action for which the subject is a divorce, allowance of alimony, or child custody." Kahn v. Kahn, 21 F.3d 859, 861 (8th Cir. 1994).

Who in their right mind would ever relinquish the protection of “Due Process of Law” in a domestic dispute? The Supreme Court has with "The domestic relations exception” denied us illegally, unconstitutionally to the “deprivation of our Due Process rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[17] (4th and 14th Amendments).

Where are the most people going to encounter the Justice system in our modern society today? Are most people criminals? No. Most people have families, most people’s first encounter with our Justice system today occurs in Family Law, 1 out every 2 marriages ends in divorce. And in Family Court we have no enforceable constitutional rights we are at the complete discretion of the negligent, corrupt, and malicious family commissioner (would be judges), adversarial alleged victims[18] and judges without recourse to our Constitutionally Guaranteed Rights.

I say AGAIN, THIS IS INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have no enforceable Constitutional Law, we have no RIGHTS in America today. We live at the discretion of the criminal corrupt, malicious and incompetent Judiciary, Prosecution, Police and alleged victims.

Everyone[19] acting under color of law has ABSOLUTE immunity from the “deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[20] They have ALL been awarded ABSOLUTE immunity from the conspiracy for the deprivation of rights by criminally negligent, corrupt, and malicious Supreme Court precedent.

How do we get enforcement of our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[21] if NO ONE is liable for them??????

THIS IS INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is in direct conflict with The Constitution that proposes inalienable, inviolable rights i.e., “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”[22]

Specifically Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. ”

The “Jim Crow” era post Civil War (1865) was initiated based on the non sequitur, "Black Men can not be trusted around White Woman." The “Jane Crow” era[24] was initiated (1974) based on the non sequitur, "Men can not be trusted around Children and Woman."

In that the “Jim Crow” assertions are still in evidence today in our discriminatory use of the Death Penalty and in our affirmative-action policies today we still have issues.

Now the Supreme Court literally pays lip service to constitutional rights with their oath of office:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic“

“When there is a substantial showing that the exertion of state power has overridden private rights secured by that Constitution, the subject is necessarily one for judicial inquiry in an appropriate proceeding directed against the individuals charged with the transgression. To such a case the federal judicial power extends (Article III, § 2), and, so extending, the Court has all the authority appropriate to its exercise.”

I have been fighting this for SEVEN years. I have endured over seven years of denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[26], two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America[27].

I was held to answer TWO unsubstantiated infamous charges without probable cause. In direct denial of my 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment rights. Under the first unsubstantiated infamous charge (Jeep v Jones, et al) I was held because of the unrelated second unsubstantiated infamous charge (Jeep v Bennett, et al). The second unsubstantiated infamous charge was from a different geographical jurisdiction and a different subject matter jurisdiction. Thus the judicial officer, a commissioner of limited jurisdiction, not only had no probable cause to establish jurisdiction over me and hold me to answer on an infamous charge, he had NO geographic or subject matter JURISDICTION over me.

With the second unsubstantiated infamous charge (Jeep v Bennett, et al) incompetence reigned supreme. I was arrested and held to answer by two incompetent police officers over my timely and respectful objections.

How can I assert they were incompetent, THEY TESTIFIED to their INCOMPETENCE in their sworn police reports at the time of arrest and under oath on the stand at trial. I subsequent to their FALSE, I assert fraudulent and perjurious, police reports and testimony proved beyond any doubt with outside verifiable assertions that their testimony was FALSE.

I took both cases to Federal Court as civil rights issues first under Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights thinking the denial of rights was obvious. I had been held on a pair of “infamous charges” without any “probable cause” and I had clearly been denied Justice with “Due Process of Law.” This violated my 4th Amendment immunity from being held with out “probable cause.” This violated my 5th Amendment immunity from being held on an “infamous” charge alone. This violated my 5th Amendment right to “Due Process of Law” as regards the False Testimony of the Police Officers. In that this had all happen in State Court this violated the Federal protection of 14th Amendment, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

I was denied in 8th Circuit, Eastern and Western District of Missouri Federal Courts (U.S. District Court Eastern District of Missouri Jeep v. Jones et al, 4:07-cv-01116-CEJ and U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri Jeep v Bennett, et al 07-0506-CV-W-SOW).

I took it to the 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, I was denied (07-2614 and 08-1823).

I was nearly insane then, as I am now. The Evidence is CLEAR if you just look at. I have been subject to the “deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[28]

I was arrested held for 411 days illegally, I was subject to TWO psychological examinations, I was denied my 6th Amendment “right to a speedy and public trial” and then I was release penniless and on the street 25 miles from where I had been arrested at night in a cold rain in a t-shirt and prison pants. It was another CRIMINAL denial of rights.[29]

I went back to the Supreme Court asserting Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens was a case where the Supreme Court had allowed Federal Agents to be sued for violation of Civil rights. But again I was denied U.S. Federal Court Eastern District of Missouri Case No. Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM. I took it AGAIN to the 8th District Court of appeals Appeal: 10-1947 and was again DENIED. I went back to the Supreme Court with a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Jeep v United States of America “Opposed to Immunity” and was this time IGNORED!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Magna Carta in 1215 (§ 61), the first modern attempt at limiting government, established the right of redress:

“If we, our chief justice (judges), our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security… they shall come to us - or in our absence from the kingdom to the chief justice - to declare it and claim immediate redress… by seizing our castles, lands, possessions, or anything else saving only our own person and those of the queen and our children, until they have secured such redress as they have determined upon.”

It was assumed by the Barons, that the King, his chief justice (judges), his officials, or any of his servants might offend and there would need to be a right of redress.

The 1st Amendment to the Constitution as the “supreme Law of the Land[30]” requires that the Courts afford “We the People” consideration and thus Due Process of Law as regard “Congress shall make no law… abridging the… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” It was assumed by the Founding Fathers, the newly formed Government would from time to time screw up and be liable to the Citizen for a redress of grievances. The founding Fathers had learned from the experience of history from the time of Lord CokeFloyd and Barker (1607)[25][31] to the writing of the constitution (1787):

“If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.[32]”

The “auxiliary precautions”[33] precluded the grant of ABSOLUTE immunity to anyone.

Judicial Power, the administration of Justice, per Article III of the Constitution for the United States of America is to submit to the Rule of Law not declare immunity from it: “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties….” This is in addition to the Judiciary’s oath of Office:

“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Justice under the law was important to the founding fathers. The Declaration of Independence was based on the pursuit of Justice under the law to over come “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism[34]”. James Madison wrote:

“Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradually induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.[35]”

“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.”

This is a MASSIVE ongoing a conspiracy of deliberate depraved indifference to the deprivation of RIGHTS. Our Public servants are unencumbered by the Constitution. They have NO civil or criminal liability for their depraved, negligent, corrupt, and malicious actions. “We the People” are powerless in spite of Our Constitution, Our Civil Law, Our Criminal Law. The servants of “We the People” have DEPRIVED “We the People” of our inviolable, inalienable constitutionally assured RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

THIS IS INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Everyone[36] acting under color of law in a court of law has ABSOLUTE immunity from the “deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.”[37] They have ALL been awarded ABSOLUTE immunity from the conspiracy for the deprivation of rights by criminally negligent, corrupt, and malicious Supreme Court precedent.

How do we get enforcement of our rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws”[38] if NO ONE is liable for them??????

THIS IS INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is in direct conflict with The Constitution that proposes inalienable, inviolable rights i.e., “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”[39]

Specifically Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights: “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. ”

[18] “It doesn't take a cynic to point out that when a woman is getting a divorce, what she may truly fear is not violence, but losing the house or kids. Under an Order of Protection, if she's willing to fib to the judge and say she is "in fear" of her children's father, she will get custody and money and probably the house.“ quote “The Booming Domestic Violence Industry” Massachusetts News, 08/02/99, By John Maguire.

I was held to answer and infamous charge without any probable cause. I enclose a copy of the petition for an ex-parte order of protection dated 11 November 2003, for verification:

At the hearing, the would be Judge, Commissioner Jones created new pleadings out of surprise infamous testimony that contradicted the pretrial pleadings. I quote form the trial transcript:

“MR. SCHLESINGER: I renew my objection to all the testimony about physical abuse, physical harm, and threatened harm, based on it being outside the scope of the pleadings.

COMMISSIONER JONES: Overruled.

The Court finds--First of all, the Court amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced.[1] The Court does find the allegations of the amended petition[2] to be true. The Court does enter a full order of protection against the Respondent. This order will supercede the ex parte order of protection entered in this cause on the 3rd day of November and serves to terminate that order.

The Respondent should not use, attempt to use, or threaten to use physical force against the Petitioner that would be reasonably expected to cause her bodily harm, should not stalk, abuse, threaten to abuse, molest, or disturb her peace wherever she may be found. He also shall not communicate with her in any manner or through any means.

And he is also further restrained from the residence at 16325 Centerpointe Drive in Wildwood, Missouri 63040.[3]

This order will expire the 19th day of November, the year 2004.

MR. SCHLESINGER: Your Honor--

COMMISSIONER JONES: That will conclude the hearing.

MR. SCHLESINGER: Your Honor—“

My attorney of record (MR. SCHLESINGER) had made motions PRIOR to and DURING the hearing. EVERYONE knew, I was being held to answer an infamous charge without any probable cause. The pleadings did not allege any abuse. During the Kangaroo Court Commissioner Jones “amends the pleadings to conform with the evidence adduced” and finds them to be true on the FLY during the hearing; MAKING a mockery of Due Process of law. He TAKES EVERYTHING away from me leaves me destitute and in an emotional and psychological stupor… THAT TO THIS DAY I have still not recovered from!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I was a BASKET CASE. My attorney of record files motions,[4] post hearing, for clarification of amended pleadings, asserting MY 14th Amendment right to Due Process of law on the amended pleadings. I include the 12/5/03 motion for verification:

He was denied!!!!!!!!!!!

Click on image to enlarge

I say that again,

He was denied!!!!!!!!!!!

SEVEN YEARS later I am still asking for the specifics of the amended petition, not mention Due Process of Law as assured by the 5th and 14th Amendment. I have been to the Supreme Court and back. I have BEEN to the FBI and back. I have reported the crimes to the Attorney for the United States of America and back. I have filed appeal after complaints, after motions after appeals. WHERE is the PROTECTION of the LAW our fore fathers assured US??????????

“The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection. In Great Britain, the King himself is sued in the respectful form of a petition, and he never fails to comply with the judgment of his court.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)

CRIMINALS acting in a conspiracy of deliberate indifference to the deprivation of RIGHTS are unencumbered by any civil or criminal liability for their CORRUPT, NEGLIGENT and MALICIOUS actions. They ALL have immunity.

This is INSANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

When your rights have been denied, what do you do??? Where do you go?? The State Courts were the SOURCE of the issue. I reported a crime to the Attorney for the United States of America. I have been to Federal Courts Jeep v. Jones et al, (4:07-cv-01116-CEJ) and Jeep v Bennett, et al, (07-0506-CV-W-SOW). I have been to the Federal Court of Appeals (07-2614 and 08-1823) I have been to the Supreme Court (07-11115). I have been to the FBI. I have been to the United States Marshal Service. I went BACK TO THE Federal Courts with the denial from the FBI (Case 4:10-CV-101-TCM). I went BACK TO THE Federal Court appeals with the denial from the FBI (10-1947). I went back to the Supreme Court and was IGNORED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where does a person go for Due Process of Law’s 14th Amendment’s protection????????? Do we even have Due Process of Law or is the 20+ story building on 10th Street just a ruse???

Where do you go for the

PROTECTION of the LAW??????????

I was denied DUE process of Law in TWO MISSOURI State Courts. One Jeep v. Jeep (Case No.: 03FC-10670M) at the hands of a would be judge, of limited jurisdiction, and an alleged victim that never claimed any abuse in issue before the court, and has since confirmed under oath there was no abuse.

The Second, Missouri State Court JEEP v. State of Missouri (CR203-1336M), where the TWO arresting Police Officers both gave false testimony with the prior knowledge and oversight and confirmation of three State’s Attorney and two State Judges[5].

I have done nothing wrong. No one has ever credibly even accused me of wrongdoing.

I am looking at another Christmas alone and homeless!!!!! I live on the street and in homeless shelters. I have endured 7 years of criminal denial, 411 days of illegal incarceration[6], two psychological examinations, and three years of abject poverty, homelessness and life on the street in my struggle, Jeep v. United States of America[7]. AM I crazy because I want my son, my rights, my life liberty and property as assured by the 14th Amendment? There is no exception to the 14th Amendment’s requirement for ANY LAW!!!

“No Stateshall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

If there is anything further I can do for you in this regard, please let me know.

“Time is of the essence”

Thank you in advance.

Friday, December 03, 2010

David G. Jeep

c/o The Bridge

1610 Olive Street, Saint Louis, MO 63103-2316

E-Mail Dave@DGJeep.com (e-mail is preferred)

David G. Jeep

cc: file

[1] This surprise finding, which over rules the petitioners own assertions is in direct conflict with Due Process of Law. The Respondent NEVER had a chance.

[2] There were TWO post trial motions for this “amended petition” it was never provided nor was the respondent ever allowed to be heard on this “amended petition”

[3] I was thrown out of my house. I was emotionally shocked (PTSD). I was homeless.

[4] I include copies of the December 5, 2003 motion. There a subsequent motion filed December 19, 2003 (+/-) also.

[5] Judges can violate the Constitution and Brady!!!! Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), says: “We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Page 373 U. S. 87. Without specific PROBABLE CAUSE related to the charge of “abuse” I could not defend my self. It was like shooting fish in barrel. The RECORD supports this!!!!!!!!!!!!

GoFundMe

Contact Form

About Me

“Where
an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is
safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.

Where
there is an excess of liberty, the effect is the same, tho’ from an opposite
cause.

Government
is instituted to protect property of every sort, as well that which lies in the
various rights of individuals as that which the term particularly expresses.
This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which
impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” James
Madison “Essays for the National Gazette 1791- 1792”

The
strength of human civilization is its ability to OVERCOME our purely animal
instincts… CO-OPERATE for the GREATER GOOD!!Human civilization is the only species on this planet capable of
overcoming the animal instinct of Herbert Spencer’s discredited “survival of
the fittest.”This ability is what makes
us human, what makes us dominant and what separates us from the animals.

The
United States of America was FOUNDED on the "Love of Virtue."The Founding Fathers based their
constitutional assertions on the love of virtue as defined by Montesquieu’s
republican government’s essential ingredient, the willingness to put the
interests of the community ahead of private interests.We need to remember the, at the time,
“REVOLUTIONARY” “Love of Virtue” that this country was founded upon….